Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

I always wonder about this but i have read reports that the Labour can come in 3rd on pop vote but still get more members of commons then the party with the 2nd most pop vote?

How does that actually work?

Spoiler for tl;dr:

Imagine a country where representatives are elected by plurality voting from single-member districts like in the US or UK. Suppose Labour wins 40% of the vote in every seat, and the remaining 60% is split evenly between Conservatives and Liberals. How many seats will Labour win? Every seat, of course, since the Labour candidate will have placed first in every seat.

In real life, such uniformity doesn't exist. Humans clump together for many reasons and create communities that have different resources and interests. Labour has dozens of "safe" seats, as do, to a lesser degree I think, the Tories, and to a considerably lesser degree the LibDems. The 2005 result shows Labour winning a mix of urban and traditional working-class constituencies, while the Tories garner votes from the suburbs and countryside. The LibDem seats still come largely from places with historical Liberal leanings like the southwest and some parts of Wales and Scotland. I'm especially curious about the sociology of the remarkably competitive seat, Ealing Central and Acton.

So, to answer your question, suppose we see a "swing" (to use the British term) away from Labour today. In many Labour seats that will have no effect on the identity of the MP. Even if 10% defect from a Labour incumbent who won with 70% of the vote last time, that same MP will still win, just with a diminished majority. Same holds true for seats where the other parties (like the Scottish National Party) have substantial majorities.

The BBC has thoughtfully provided a little playground where we can simulate various results. Set the dial to 30% for each of the three major parties, and 10% for the SDP, Plaid Cymru, and the Irish parties, and see what you get for a distribution of seats in Parliament. I get a Labour plurality, but a minority government.

Now look at the opinion poll results. Click on each of them from ComRes to Harris and see what happens in Parliament. ComRes shows the largest Conservative margin, but it's still not a majority. Still if you bump up the Tories share by taking votes away from Labour, you can get to a Conservative majority around 39%.

Like AutumnDemon, the bookies, and these polls, I'm also guessing we'll see a Conservative plurality. In 1974, Labour edged out the Tories by a measly four seats, got the Queen to accept them as the Government,* then went back to the country eight months later and won a majority. I don't see that happening for the Tories. Even giving the Conservatives an implausible share of the vote in the BBC's calculator doesn't give the Tories a very large margin of seats. Holding another election may not yield a majority this time round.

No-majority is currently on 4/5 at Ladbrokes; not such a good deal as 8/3 in 1974.

*A hot political issue in some royalist circles was whether the Crown might have some say in the choice of Government. Cooler heads prevailed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

So Gerrymander wasn't invented in the US then.

Spoiler for tl;dr once again:

If you base representation on geography and let elected officials draw district lines as we do here in the US, you can expect that those drawing the lines will maximize their advantage. Districts like Gerry's infamous "salamander" still exist today; I live in one of them. House Banking Chairman Barney Frank's district extends from here in the liberal Boston suburbs along a narrow corridor to the long-time coastal Democratic bastions of New Bedford and Fall River. Once home to proud industries like fishing and needlework that employed generations of immigrants, these communities now struggle to find a place for themselves in the 21st century.

Nowadays state parties employ armies of consultants with computerized tools to maximize the expected size of their parties' delegation in the House of Representatives.

The US Supreme Court and the lower courts have made a number of rulings concerning the representativeness of districts, usually as a result of suits in the ex-Confederacy whose election procedures remain under Federal scrutinyto this day supposedly to protect the rights of African-Americans in these states. (As much as I supported the civil rights movement, I think we need to move on. Apparently politicians on both sides of the aisle don't agree.)

Unlike we screwy Americans, the UK employs a non-partisan Commission to draw its constituency boundaries. Even the most scrupulous commission needs some criteria to decide which communities to group together. Usually there's a concept of "natural communities," areas that contain people that are for whatever reasons considered "alike," and obvious mathematical criteria like geographical compactness (circular districts would be the ideal).

I live in one of them. House Banking Chairman Barney Frank's district extends from here in the liberal Boston suburbs along a narrow corridor to the long-time coastal Democratic bastions of New Bedford and Fall River. Once home to proud industries like fishing and needlework that employed generations of immigrants, these communities now struggle to find a place for themselves in the 21st century.

Hey, I walk over to the 4th district every day to do my grocery shopping! I live on the other side of the Charles River, though, in Ed Markey's district. I guess that makes us neighbors.

Warning:Bitch session ahead.

Spoiler for Thoughts on pointlessness of representative democracy:

When I was a kid, I used to go to the Town Meetings. My mom was a Town Meeting Member, which meant she represented the neighborhood, and I would walk around, door-to-door, with her to ask people for their vote at election time. The town precincts were only a few blocks, so we could stop by everybody's house on Saturday, then head out again on Sunday to try the folks who weren't home the first time. While I was in high school, the town voted to abolish the Town Meeting form of government. From about 50 members, representation went down to 9 (councilors). Now nobody bothers to walk door to door to ask for people's votes.

I knew at the time that I was watching my town give up on participatory democracy. People enjoy complaining about how they are being ill-treated by the politicians, but nobody wants to do the hard work of self-governance. For democracy to be anything other than an absolute sham, people have to be continuously engaged in the process; if they aren't involved in making the little decisions themselves (not just local politics, I mean in the workplace as well), they won't be prepared to make decisions at the national level. Instead people vote once every two to four years in a meaningless popularity poll.

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

There's nothing illegal in being a Klan member or advocating Klan ideas. Acting on those beliefs and engaging in illegal acts is another story. In those cases charges can be brought against the individuals involved. The Klan has been forced to pay substantial damages in civil suits as well.

It's the American way. We let the hate groups spout whatever they want and give them consitutional protections as well. I rather like that about my country. I'm of the opinion that the solution to "bad" speech is more speech, not repression.

There's nothing illegal in being a Klan member or advocating Klan ideas. Acting on those beliefs and engaging in illegal acts is another story. In those cases charges can be brought against the individuals involved. The Klan has been forced to pay substantial damages in civil suits as well.

It's the American way. We let the hate groups spout whatever they want and give them consitutional protections as well. I rather like that about my country. I'm of the opinion that the solution to "bad" speech is more speech, not repression.

Is it like - as long as you don't do anything against any of the 4 freedoms, you can say whatever you want?

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

It may not have occurred to you before, but Singapore also does not in principle ban groups that are considered cults, or borderline heretical, by others. The freedom of religion, speech, assembly and association is enshrined in the Constitution.

The caveat, however, is that such freedoms cannot be used to offend public order, public health or morality. Of course, they must not be seditious either.

Which leads naturally to quite a fair bit of interpretation. But such grey areas are not unique to Singapore's Constitution. Laws exist to serve a community. It just so happens that this country's laws are tilted more towards society ("the greater good") than to individuals.

Yup, there are definitely some censoring issues here, just one instance of the paradoxical law enforcement in this country. Though I have to say, it seems to have gotten better in recent years. I think radio talk shows are currently the area where censoring is most prominent, just from what I know about Don Imus or Howard Stern.

freedom of speech works perfectly well if you happen to be a KKK member, since minor stuff like preaching the racial supremacy of the white race is all fine and dandy in the good old US of A

its only when you do something REALLY evil - like showing Muhammad on southpark - that freedom of speech seems to run out.

That's a network doing the censoring, not the government. Just because people have a right to say what they want does not mean a private media company has to show it. Please show one instance of someone in the US being arrested and charged with showing a depiction of Muhammad. Otherwise it is not a free speech issue, it's a network being overly sensitive issue. I agree that it should not have been censored, but you are grossly misrepresenting the situation.

freedom of speech works perfectly well if you happen to be a KKK member, since minor stuff like preaching the racial supremacy of the white race is all fine and dandy in the good old US of A

its only when you do something REALLY evil - like showing Muhammad on southpark - that freedom of speech seems to run out.

Well... don't confuse official "freedom of speech" with threats from zealots resulting in self-censorship. Two different things.

Frankly, "Freedom of Speech" encourages the clowns and morons to make public fools of themselves so everyone else can more easily "spot the loony" (like the KKK).

The Southpark thing was basically a corporate coward move and last I checked, threatening to kill someone is still actionable legally in the US. That needs to be dumped on the zealots (be they Christian, Muslim, whatever) like a ton of bricks.

It may not have occurred to you before, but Singapore also does not in principle ban groups that are considered cults, or borderline heretical, by others. The freedom of religion, speech, assembly and association is enshrined in the Constitution.

The caveat, however, is that such freedoms cannot be used to offend public order, public health or morality. Of course, they must not be seditious either.

Which leads naturally to quite a fair bit of interpretation. But such grey areas are not unique to Singapore's Constitution. Laws exist to serve a community. It just so happens that this country's laws are tilted more towards society ("the greater good") than to individuals.

The problem with "offend public order" is a little difficult to enforce......if any of you have realised (or is still in school), the local megachurches' minions can be EXTREMELY annoying that I wonder how did I keep my facade of "no thank you" instead of launching into an argument with them. In fact, their influence have pretty much gained themselves the name of being a "cult" here.

I believe you have been old enough to know about Operation Spectrum, in which 22 people are arrested for "trying to subvert the Singapore Government and create a Marxist State". I am not surprised if the ISD decided to invite them over to a coffee session to discuss the future of the megacorp country.

Over at US, they are much more liberal, but I can't seem to understand why they would allow a racist group to run wild.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Yes, but what happens when "the loony" is like pretty much all the Southern parts of the United States (aka Tea Party, intelligent design etc. etc.)?

Don't talk about intelligent design lol! I became part of a really heated class discussion back then when it was on Time Magazine...though I became really evil by inducing an "argumentum ad nauseam" by enforcing an argument which became the rule of the floor : replacing the word "god" with "omnipotent entity of ambiguous existence" w.r.t to the non-christian believers in the class, which eventually shortened became "entity", and my religiously inclined classmates gave up because they had problem trying not to make the word sound like a synonym to mammary glands.

Back on topic, it seems like the symbol of freedom of what U.S is became the symbol of "doing whatever one wants with no regards or due respect to others".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx

Lately, it informs me that perhaps I'd like to retire elsewhere because I'm rather pessimistic about the long-term prospects of this place anymore.

But the US is a really big place. Too easy to schedule travel plans that don't include hyperbolic infestations of loony so I don't encounter them very often.

You could come over here. I am not surprised if A-Star starts fapping at your CV because you worked with NASA.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Back on topic, it seems like the symbol of freedom of what U.S is became the symbol of "doing whatever one wants with no regards or due respect to others".

While America has a radically individualist culture when viewed from societies with more collectivist tendencies like much of Asia and Europe, we also have three hundred years of laws and legal argument designed to manage as best we can the results of excessive individualism.

The caveat that TRL mentioned, "that such freedoms cannot be used to offend public order, public health or morality, [or be] seditious" is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment to our Constitution, namely that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." While First Amendment absolutists (I'm pretty close to one) might argue that "no law" means just that, historically the Court has been faced with determining when it might excuse limitations on speech on other grounds. The jurisprudence here spans centuries and an dizzying array of subjects.

While America has a radically individualist culture when viewed from societies with more collectivist tendencies like much of Asia and Europe, we also have three hundred years of laws and legal argument designed to manage as best we can the results of excessive individualism.

The caveat that TRL mentioned, "that such freedoms cannot be used to offend public order, public health or morality, [or be] seditious" is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment to our Constitution, namely that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." While First Amendment absolutists (I'm pretty close to one) might argue that "no law" means just that, historically the Court has been faced with determining when it might excuse limitations on speech on other grounds. The jurisprudence here spans centuries and an dizzying array of subjects.

The wingnut of this Amendment is the "peaceably assemble", because any assembly can be counted as peaceful so long as there is no intention of violence, wherefore a place to subliminally and subtly spread instructions to partake in activities contrary to state ideals. Over here, any assembly will require approval from the local authorities (other than the ones lead by the ruling parties, TRL, remember a certain protest lead by one of the politicians? ), even a so-called oration corner. I am not exactly sure about public assemblies in US, so I might need someone to correct me should I go wrong in my perception.

Anyway, the problem with law often lies in the interpretation of its words. A single law can have so many loopholes, in this case it concerns the freedom of speech (which includes whichever kind of article to spread an idea) which can indirectly trigger thought, supposedly being free too. In short, one can spread his/her idea, but there isn't exactly a caveat dictating the exact content type influencing for or otherwise to the state ideals. Besides, content can be written so subtly that views can differ so much, then again, leading to the multiple interpretations of the First Amendment.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

I'll probably throw in a new image every hour, although I'll edit this post so as not to spam . Election results will be from the BBC.

Thanks for that, was tempted to make a thread myself, even if Asuki feels like there're 85% american members on here, the UK election is also approaching some new moments in history in terms of results and voting.

The pokemon thing is cute and all, wonder who creates these

__________________

Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere. - Van Wilder"If you ain't laughin', you ain't livin'." - Carlos Mencia